alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Technology Investment Plan (TIP) No.:______________ 

AD700 or AD672 No.:___________________ 

Acquisition Title:________________________________ 

Attachment 4 

COMPLIANCE NOT REQUIRED DETERMINATION 

(Modified from Attachment Three of AGAR Advisory No. 49) 

The Requiring Official must provide a written determination to the Contracting Officer for inclusion in 

the file in order to document that the Agency requirements for EIT need not meet the applicable 

accessibility standards for 36 CFR, Part 1194 because: 

a. It is purchased in accordance with subpart 13.2 for micro-purchases of $2,500 or less prior to 

October 1, 2004. Contracting Officers and other individuals designated in accordance with 

1.603-3 are encouraged to comply with the applicable accessibility standards to the maximum 

extent practicable; 

b. It is for a national security system; 

c. It is acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract, or is neither used nor accessed by 

Federal employees or members of the public; or 

d. It is to be located in spaces frequented only by service personnel for maintenance, repair or 

occasional monitoring of equipment. 

Approval of Determination

Section 508 Standards do not apply to this investment (requirement) because of item # _____ above. 

Signed ________________________________ __________________________ 

 Program Requiring Official Date 

Signed ________________________________ __________________________ 

 Program Section 508 Representative Date 

Signed _____________________________________ __________________________ 

 AMS Section 508 Coordinator (Designee) Date 

Signed __________________________________ __________________________ 

 AMS Chief Information Officer Date
In re Deborah Lindsey

ParhamAppellant/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 21, 2015

No. 04-15-00241-CV

IN RE Deborah Lindsey PARHAM

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

On April 21, 2015, relator Deborah Lindsey Parham filed a petition for writ of mandamus

and motion for emergency stay pending a ruling on the mandamus petition. The court has

considered the petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to

the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay

are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on April 21, 2015.

____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21 day of April, 2015.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013-PC-3933, styled In the Guardianship of Juanita E. Byrd, An

Incapacitated Person, pending in the Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Kelly M. Cross

presiding.

FILE COPY
Order entered May 21, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01651-CV

CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant

V.

DIANE SANCHEZ, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-08320-J

ORDER

We GRANT appellees’/cross-appellant’s May 19, 2014 unopposed motion for extension 

of time to file cross-appellant’s reply brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than May 27, 

2014.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OFAMEREN CORPORATION(required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 of Ameren Corporation (the
Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Form 10-K), I, Warner L. Baxter, chief financial officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)    The Form
10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of           the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)    The
information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 9, 2004

| |  | /s/ Warner L. Baxter
Warner L. BaxterExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Joan V. Rocchio, Plaintiff, *v.*Bel-Air Properties Corp. et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

May 8, 1959.

*511
      *T. Stanley Bloch*for plaintiff.

*Jerome M. Rehr*for Bel-Air Properties Corp., defendant.

Samuel M. Gold, J.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment against the defendant Bel-Air Properties Corp. She seeks the recovery of excess rent paid pursuant to a lease, plus treble damage and reasonable counsel fee. She claims to have used the subject apartment as a residence only. The lease provides for business use, which, plaintiff contends, was so arranged on defendants’ insistence as a device to evade the State Residential Rent Law (L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd.). In any event, defendant failed to comply with section 13 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations and accordingly the apartment remained controlled. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount paid in excess of the maximum rent. With respect to treble damage and counsel fee sought to be recovered pursuant to section 11 of the State Residential Rent Law, there is a triable issue whether the violation of the regulation was willful or resulted from failure to take practical precautions against the occurrence of the violation. Plaintiff moves additionally to restrain the dissolution of the defendant corporation. Such relief is not available in this action. The motion is granted to the extent indicated.

Settle order.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 404 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 404

   Commemorating the 75\th\ anniversary of the Virginia Institute of 
            Marine Science of the College of William & Mary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2015

 Mr. Wittman submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
              the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Commemorating the 75\th\ anniversary of the Virginia Institute of 
            Marine Science of the College of William & Mary.

Whereas the Virginia General Assembly, with Professor Donald W. Davis of the 
        College of William & Mary, envisioned a center for marine research and 
        education in the Commonwealth of Virginia;
Whereas the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (referred to in this preamble 
        as ``VIMS''), originally known as the Virginia Fisheries Laboratory, 
        began operation in 1940;
Whereas the early work of VIMS assured the future of the fishery industry in 
        Virginia by improving the general knowledge of the resources of 
        fisheries so that they might be properly conserved and managed, and by 
        meeting the need for training in practical marine biology;
Whereas VIMS is now the home of the School of Marine Sciences of the College of 
        William & Mary, a university research and teaching center with a strong 
        element of public service, and is the leading marine center that focuses 
        on estuarine and coastal environments in the nation; and
Whereas VIMS continues to serve the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United 
        States by advancing the frontiers of marine science and sharing the 
        knowledge gained through research with the users and stewards of the 
        environment and future scientists: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates the College of William & Mary and the 
        Virginia Institute of Marine Science on the 75\th\ anniversary 
        of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science; and
            (2) expresses appreciation for the 75 years of service to 
        the environment by the faculty, staff, and students of the 
        Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the School of Marine 
        Sciences of the College of William & Mary.
                                 <all>
```
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 197 

Expressing support for designation of April as ‘‘Organ Donation Awareness/ 

Donate Life Month’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2015 

Mr. WALKER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of April as ‘‘Organ 

Donation Awareness/Donate Life Month’’. 

Whereas according to United Network of Organ Sharing 

(UNOS), more than 116,000 people are waiting for 

organ transplants; 

Whereas an average of 18 people awaiting transplants die 

each day due to the severe shortage of donated organs; 

Whereas every 10 minutes another name is added to the 

transplant waiting list; 

Whereas one organ donor can save the lives of up to 8 people 

and improve the lives of up to 50 people through tissue 

and cornea donation; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 197 IH 

Whereas everyone should be encouraged to get the facts 

about donation and discuss their wishes with their families; 

Whereas the Department of Motor Vehicles plays a critical 

role in maintaining a donor registry, with donors having 

registered when receiving their driver’s license or ID 

card, which are identified by the symbol of a red heart; 

Whereas State organ recovery agencies, health care professionals, volunteers, educators, government agencies, faithbased and community groups, and private organizations 

hope to boost the numbers of organ, tissue, eye, blood, 

bone marrow, and stem cell donors throughout the 

United States; and 

Whereas April would be an appropriate month to designate 

as ‘‘Organ Donation Awareness/Donate Life Month’’: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the designation of ‘‘Organ Donation Awareness/Donate 

3 Life Month’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RYAN ADAM DIXON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

ELIZABETH BERNS; MATTHEW SCOTT

GOGUEN; JIE LIANG GOGUEN,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

YVONNE CURTIS; JENNI R.W.

HALLACK; CYNTHIA BUHR; STATE OF

WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL; WASHINGTON

STATE BAR ASSOCIATION,

Defendants. No. 21

- 35902

D.C. No. 2:21

- cv

- 00070

- RSM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 8, 2022 * *

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 21 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 35902

Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Ryan Adam Dixon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action related to state court proceedings that

terminated his parental rights

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Puri

v. Khalsa , 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Dixon’s action because Dixon failed to

allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, ac cepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ashelman v. Pope , 793 F.2d 1072,

1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (judges are absolutely immune from damage liability for

judicial acts).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Dixon’s action

without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See

Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to

amend is proper where amendment would be futile)

.

We reject as unsupported by the record Dixon’s contention that the district

court erred by failing to address various motions.3 21

- 35902

Dixon’s motion for voluntary dismissal as to appellees Mathew Scott

Gogeun and Jie Liang Goguen (Docket Entry No. 17) is granted. This appeal is

dismissed as to appellees Mathew Scott Gogeun and Jie Liang Goguen only. See

Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). Dixon’s motion for proof of admission to practice (Docket

Entry No. 8 ) is denied.

AFFIRMED.
Motor to Motor Distance: 15.7 in (400mm) 

Rotor Type: Quadcopter 

Prop Diameter: 10.2 in (260mm) 

Approximate Flight Time: 30 minutes 

Battery: 11.1V 3S 5400mAh Li-Po 

Height: 9.50 in (242mm) 

Weight: 45.9 oz (1.3 kg) 

Motor Type: 4 × 780Kv Brushless Outrunner 

Control Link: 2.4GHz 

Video Link: 5.8GHz 

Video Link Range: 1,970 ft (600m) 

Satellite Navigation System: GPS, GLONASS 

Completion Level: Ready-to-Fly
Exhibit 24.2**POWER OF ATTORNEY**     WHEREAS, UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY, a Missouri corporation (herein referred to as the“Company”), is required to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the provisionsof the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, its annual reportonForm 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2006; and     WHEREAS, each of the below undersigned is a director of the Company.     NOW, THEREFORE, each of the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Gary L. Rainwater,Thomas R. Voss and/or Warner L. Baxter and/or Steven R. Sullivan and/or Martin J. Lyons and/orJerre E. Birdsong the true and lawful attorneys-in-fact of the undersigned, for and in the name,place and stead of the undersigned, to affix the name of the undersigned to said Form 10-K and anyamendments thereto, and, for the performance of the same acts, each with power to appoint in theirplace and stead and as their substitute, one or more attorneys-in-fact for the undersigned, withfull power of revocation; hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact may do byvirtue hereof.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands this 9th day of February2007:     Daniel F. Cole, Director      /s/ Daniel F. Cole        Richard J. Mark, Director      /s/ Richard J. Mark        Gary L. Rainwater, Director      /s/ G. L. Rainwater        Steven R. Sullivan, Director      /s/ Steven R. Sullivan        STATE OF MISSOURI )    ) SS.  CITY OF ST. LOUIS )       On this 9th day of February, 2007, before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for saidState, personally appeared the above-named directors of Union Electric Company, known to me to bethe persons described in and who executed the foregoing power of attorney and acknowledged to methat they executed the same as their free act and deed for the purposes therein stated.     IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal.       /s/ Debby Anzalone     Debby Anzalone    Notary Public- Notary Seal    STATE OF MISSOURI- ST. LOUIS COUNTY    Commission #06435722    My Commission Expires 05/04/2010
EXHIBIT 99.1



WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C.
1350, I, the undersigned Chairman of the Board of Directors of Checkers Drive In Restaurants, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
March 24, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/    PETER C.
OHARA
|Peter C. OHara       



May 5, 2003
10259

#### State v. Pollack

Dismissed
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-2843 Directorate ID: 2015-SW-003-AD

Helicopter Model: Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and MBBBK 117 D-2 helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 137 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent the hoist damper unit detaching from the 

cable resulting in loss of an external load or person from the helicopter hoist and injury to 

persons being lifted by the hoist.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $8,715 for the replacement

$171 for the modification

Labor per Helicopter

(1 work-hour X $85 for the 

replacement)

(0.5 work-hour X $85 for 

the deactivation)

(2 work-hours X $85 for 

the modification)

$85

$43

$170

Other

(Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $8,800 for the replacement

$43 for the deactivation

$341 for the modification

Total U.S. Fleet Cost

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: David N. Hatfield
**Exhibit 31.3**
**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONS**
I, David G. Peek, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Goody’s FamilyClothing, Inc. (the “registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting         By:                                        /s/ DAVID G. PEEK            David G. Peek    *Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer*   
November 17, 2004
# C_2016202EN.01034401.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/344 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/344

---

17.   Declaration concerning primacy

Declaration concerning primacy

The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law.

The Conference has also decided to attach as an Annex to this Final Act the Opinion of the Council Legal Service on the primacy of EC law as set out in 11197/07 (JUR 260):

"Opinion of the Council Legal Service

of 22 June 2007

It results from the case-law of the Court of Justice that primacy of EC law is a cornerstone principle of Community law. According to the Court, this principle is inherent to the specific nature of the European Community. At the time of the first judgment of this established case law (Costa/ENEL,15 July 1964, Case 6/641
   (1)) there was no mention of primacy in the treaty. It is still the case today. The fact that the principle of primacy will not be included in the future treaty shall not in any way change the existence of the principle and the existing case-law of the Court of Justice.

---

---
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report of DRI Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen P. Slay, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /S/ STEPHEN P. SLAY                                    Stephen P. Slay          Chief Financial Officer       March 31,2008  A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.